About your Search

20121121
20121129
STATION
CNNW 4
MSNBCW 4
KTVU (FOX) 1
LANGUAGE
English 17
Search Results 0 to 16 of about 17 (some duplicates have been removed)
to al qaeda that individuals with ties to al qaeda were involved. and then yet, went on the sunday show and left a very different impression. let's not forget that on those sunday shows on "meet the press" as well as "face the nation" she also made the statement that al qaeda was decimated. and so it left a misleading impression to the american people. i was also troubled that they knew by the 21st the acting director of the cia said that the information about the reaction to the video and the protest was wrong and that no one corrected it, including ambassador rice, even though she had left that impression on every single network, op every sunday show. that left me very concerned about that as well. >> did she say to you that she had reviewed intelligence specifically about benghazi, that had the additional information? she couldn't say so publicly. had she reviewed that intelligence? did she affirm that to you or are you assuming that she had? >> she did review it. >> so, in other words, she knew better than what you're saying that she knew better? >> yes. that's one of the questions
to have the opportunity to discuss these issues with her. why did she say that -- why did she say that al-qaeda has been decimated in her statement here on this program? al-qaeda hasn't been decimated. they're on the rise. they're all over iraq. they're in training camps n libya, they're on the rise everywhere in the middle east. there's a lot of questions we have for embassador rice and she would -- i'm sure i'll have the opportunity to discuss these with her. >> chris: you're saying that she could conceivably get your vote for secretary of state? >> she deserves the ability and the opportunity to explain herself and her position just as she said. but she's not the problem. the problem is the president of the united states, who in a debate with mitt romney, said he had said it was a terrorist attack. he hadn't. that night on "60 minutes" he said they didn't know what kind of attack it was and he continued -- >> chris: he said in an interview with 60 minutes. >> which we didn't see until after the election. i'm sure it was such an inconsequential statement it didn't deserve the attention of the
. for example, she also said al qaeda was decimated. that is pat. ly false. i asked why that statement should be made to the american people and she really had no good answer for it. there was lots of classified information that she gets briefed on that indicated this was not a hateful video that sparked a spontaneous democrat congratulation. i still don't understand why anyone who believe when you come with mortars and rocket propelled grenades how that could possibly be viewed as a spontaneous demonstration. there are a lot of layers to this. >>neil: we tried for ambassador rice and we got a statement from her office, saying we wish that we had perfect information days after the attack. the intelligence often, the assessment has evolved. >>guest: that is another big question, why would it have evolved? there were people who were survivors who were flown to germany who were interviewed by the f.b.i. they told, they said, absolutely, there was no demonstration. yet for a couple of weeks the intelligence community seemed to be wrestling with intelligence and other classified information they h
senators tuesday it was the fbi that took references to al qaeda out of these unclassified talking points rice used for her tv appearances. but later in the day morell called to say he was wrong. it was actually his agency, the cia. >> i can't help but feel incredibly disappointed that we were told something at 10:00 a.m. that couldn't withstand scrutiny for six hours and that's totally inconsistent with what we were told the day before. we now have five different explanations of who changed the talking points to take out benghazi and four different reasons. this is becoming a joke. >> reporter: it is quite surprising that the acting cia director gave incorrect information on something as politically explosive as the controversial talking points that susan rice used in a meeting with among the administration's chief republican critics. you know, the answer to why he did it according to senators is simply that he misspoke, wolf. >> so a quick question, dana. does that mean michael morell if the president were to nominate him to become the permanent director of the cia he would have problem
the opportunity to discuss these issues with her. why did she say that -- why did she say that al qaeda has been decimated? in her statement, here, on this program. al qaeda has not been decimated. they are on the rise. they are all over iraq. training camps are in libya. they are all overseer ye syria on the rise in the middle east and there's a lot of questions for ambassador rice and i'm sure i'll have the opportunity to discuss these with her. >> chris: but you are saying that she could conceivably get your vote for secretary of state? >> i think she deserves the ability and the opportunity to explain herself and her position. just as she said. but, she's not the problem. the problem is the president of the united states, who, on -- in a debate with mitt romney, said that he had said it was a terrorist attack and he hadn't and in fact that night on "60 minutes" he said they didn't know what kind of an attack it was and continued to say -- >> he said in an interview with "60 minutes" which we didn't see -- >> didn't see until after the election, i'm sure that it was such an inconsequential st
at you, this was an al qaeda storm in the making. i'm very disappointed in our intelligence community, i think they failed in many ways, but with a little bit of inquiry and curiosity, i think it would be pretty clear that to explain this episode as related that created a mob that turned into a riot was far filled. and at the end of the day, we're going to get to the bottom of this. we have to have a system that we can trust. and if you don't know what happened, just say you don't know what happened. people can push you to give explanations and you can say i don't want to give bad information. here's what i can tell you -- the american people got bad information on 16 september, they got bad information from president obama days after, and the question is, should they have been giving the information at all? if you can do nothing but give bad information, isn't it better to give no information at all? so my belief is, not only is the information bad and i'm more convinced than ever that it was bad, it was unjustified to give the scenario as presented by ambassador rice and president obam
or not that was even relevant. here's how he responded. >> two embassies were bombed by al qaeda, one simultaneously killing many. senator collins is certainly correct that at the time the ambassador to kenya requested additional security at -- or better security at the embassy because the security at that time was at a very busy intersection, not well-defended against car bombs and the like. as a result of the attacks, the state department produced new stand aurds which basically meant that any new embassy had to be moved back from major intersections or roads. and so, you know, collins is certainly right that this request was made. now, did susan rice not respond to that? i don't think we know the answer to that. was it even susan rice's responsibility? usually this is handled by the diplomatic security bureau which is in charge of these issues and so the fact that she was in charge of africa at the time of the state department may not have much bearing on this issue. we just -- and, you know, obviously she's not responsible for the benghazi security as ambassador of the u.n. we don't really know
not to say because we didn't want al qaeda to know we knew it at that point. the real question is why is mccain making this attack and wasting whatever political capital and reputation he has left? >> reporter: well, some people are wondering does mccain want to simply stay in the spotlight? mccain is known for foreign policy. he's known for going on sunday shows. the benghazi issue gets him back in the spotlight. everyone is talking about john mccain again. so some people wonder if there's a little bit of political opportunism there. >> i want to go back to something krystal said a minute ago. closing ranks behind susan rice because much political battle lines in this. you made the point earlier if you just looked at this without regard to benghazi and said john mccain realistically speaking, who potentially could appoint secretary of state that would agree ideological with you. realistically susan rice is as good as he can do. the consensus in the democratic party is probably to the right of it. i wonder is there any push-back from the left or from democrats in washington toward the admin
al-qaeda -- the taliban seems enmeshed and woven into the fabric of society. what have we accomplished? >> the book traces this one outpost from 2006 until 2009 when overrun by the taliban. in 2007-2008, that's a part of the narrative when there actually is very tangible achievement and the u.s. and the afghan government is willing to win over the local populous and get them to start casting out the terrorists in the villages and hamlets and this one lieutenant, alex newsom who was in afghanistan early this year doing special operations missions, says that when he went back to this area, the people there all remembered him. they were still anti-taliban. they were still willing to fight. he was very encouraged. as i said, he's in the minority there. but it wasn't as if all of these individuals, all of a sudden became taliban. mainly they don't want anyone bothering them. >> eliot: that's the question. no doubt. our presence there can have that affirmative effect. was it possible -- is it possible to argue tha
that those with ties to al qaeda were involved in the attack on the embassy. >> i specifically asked her whether at any point prior to going on the sunday morning television show, she was briefed or... urged to say certain things by anybody in the white house, relate to the campaign or political operations. she said, no, she was not given messaging points at all by the white house, prior to her appearance on those sunday morning shows. >> it is clear that the informs that she gave the american people was incorrect when she said that it was a spontaneous demonstration ib spired by a hateful video. it was not. and there was compelling evidence at the time that that was certainly not the case. >> bottom line, i am more disturbed now than i was before the 16th september... explanation about how four americans died in benghazi, libya, by ambassador rice. i think it does not do justice to the reality at the time and in hindsight, clearly was completely wrong. >> there are no unanswered questions... about ambassador rice's appearance on sunday shows. the talking points that she used for those a
by al qaeda affiliates but, rather, that it had begun with a protest that we nownow was nonexistent and that it was linked to a video, which we also know is not accurate. at the time ambassador rice made these assertions, there was conflicting evidence it is true but we had the president of libya saying that 50 people had been a resident, that people, terrorists from other countries had come to libya, and that the attack was premeditated and planned. i asked ambassador rice why she did not qualify her comments more in light of this contradictory reporting from the president of the country. her answer was that she relied on our intelligence analysis. i don't understand why she would not have at least qualified her response to that question. i'm also very troubled by the fact that we seem not to have learned from the 1998 bombings of two of our embassies in africa at the time when ambassador rice was the assistant secretary for african affairs. those bombings in 1998 resulted in the loss of life of 12 americans as well as many other foreign nationals and 4,000 people were injured. wha
in may 2003 that we found the wmds in iraq. dick cheney and condoleezza rice talked about links to al qaeda in iraq. you've never made up for those huge, serious, significant lies in the arena of foreign policy. and now you're picking apart, you know, basically the very early and ultimately not misleading with regard to foreign policy decisions, statements that this diplomat made. >> one thing we're learning right now the meeting with ambassador rice and senator corker is happening as we speak so a little earlier than that noontime appointment. but the one thing we heard also from senator barrasso in the last hour was john considerry's name floated out and it would be easier for him to sail through. you had the opportunity to work with john kerry before. >> sure. >> when we hear about this, is that really what the game, as joy-ann said, this machiavellian game, basically let's get kerry in this position and then scott brown could take over his seat, run for that seat in massachusetts, we get scott brownbach in? >> this is a little delicate because i know so many people involved. this
. they will examine why rice told americans the attack on the u.s. consulate in benghazi was spontaneous and not al qaeda related. rice is most likely hoping this round of meetings goes better than yesterday's. >> we are significantly troubled by many of the answers that we got and some that we didn't get. the bottom line, i'm more disturbed now than i was before. >> she misled the american public. i think that she would say that. she'd have to say that. >> our senior congressional correspondent dana bash is on capitol hill. a question for you. how can someone who wants to be america's top diplomat go into a meeting and make things worse? >> reporter: it is inexplicable is the honest answer to that question, carol. now, let's just be clear here. the people she had a meeting with, though, yesterday are her most rabid critics, those three senators you just played right before coming to me, so they definitely, you know, not that they wouldn't give her a fair hearing but they have been very, very critical of her from the start saying that they would potentially block her nomination even before talking
Search Results 0 to 16 of about 17 (some duplicates have been removed)